>>> Item number 16716 from WRITERS LOG9309B --- (115 records) ---- <<<
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 18:00:05 JST
Reply-To: WRITERS
Sender: WRITERS
From: Mike Barker
Subject: TECH: What's a stereotype?
I, and others, have been using the word "stereotype" fairly freely
recently. However, I have noticed that some of the uses aren't quite
in synch with the way I use it. Therefore...
Debating 101 says always define your terms before starting, so I looked
at some dictionaries.
[Webster's New World] a fixed or conventional expression, notion, mental
pattern, etc.
[OAD] an idea or character etc. that is standardized in a conventional
form without individuality
Interesting - one dictionary simply says conventional, while the OAD
adds the notion that the stereotype "lacks individuality."
I tend to think of a stereotype as a typical person, someone you may be
able to classify or categorize easily. Someone who fits (largely) in
the middle on whatever scales you are using. I.e., a member of the
majority, rather than one of the statistical outlyers. An identifiable
"type"?
This does not mean they are necessarily a "flat" character, merely that
their peculiarities are ordinary ones which may be seen in many other
people.
I suppose one way to put it is that these are the people who (mostly)
are the way we expect them to be and do what we might expect merely from
a superficial description. The person who works to support a family
(instead of having a secret laboratory, neurotic compulsion to power, or
whatever). The president of a company who is doing a good job without
crushing everyone in sight, embezzling funds, etc. The child who is
well-adjusted.
So I go along with the idea of stereotype as conventional. That does
not (to me) seem to imply they lack individuality. A conventional
person - a "Father Knows Best" type, for example - can be absurdly
individual and out of place in today's world. It seems to me that one
of the major plotting "themes" available today is that of the
conventional person faced with the uncertainty, confusion, and outright
unconventional world around them.
Other people seem to consider a "stereotype" as a "flat" character, or
perhaps an "Everyman" abstraction that lacks definition. An
identifiable mask for the author to cloak some idea in to let it stalk
around?
I don't think of stereotypes as lacking individuality. They are
identifiably unique and interesting, even though they are just ordinary
people who might be met anywhere.
To "break the stereotype" simply because it is expected or conventional
ignores the fact that the stereotype may have grown out of very real
social, economic, etc. circumstances, and there are usually many people
who fit it altogether too well. Each an individual, but largely
predictable. That's why people use "stereotypes" - they identify useful
patterns of behavior in a simple way, allowing them to deal with people
mostly in terms of the "type" instead of having to worry about
unpredictable reactions.
Interestingly, Analog (Oct. 1993) has an editorial about "Nouveaux
Cliches" in which Stanley Schmidt challenges writers to three points:
1. Don't confuse weak characters with strong characterization
2. Remember that human beings are not the center of the universe,
or even the only interesting thing in it.
3. Dare to be fun!
His major point about characters is that some people ARE happily
married, some people can manage their own lives, some people ARE the
majority, yet the "cliche" of current writing is that no one has
virtues, everyone is a psychological disaster area, no one can manage
their own lives, marriages are all falling apart, ad nauseum.
(or as I would say, some people are stereotypes - ordinary people.)
I guess what I'm saying is that it seems possible to me to portray an
ordinary person AS an ordinary person and still make them interesting.
Frankly, I don't enjoy all the broken and fringe people that seem to
populate current literature - they don't act like people I know, they
aren't familiar, and their "solutions" seem to be surrenders.
Joe B. mentioned
- probably somewhere in the middle. I think this way of
- thinking probably helps prevent overreliance on stereotypes
- by acknowledging that people often appear "contradictory"
- merely because we tend not to accept their complexity, their
- changeability, and , like Whitman, contain, if not multitudes,
- at least small crowds. Thanks!
Joe - does this mean you see stereotypes as "flat" characters,
one-dimensional characters?
Anyone - when you say "stereotype", what do you mean? How does this
relate to the characters we use in writing?
Can you portray someone doing exactly what is expected - and still have
an interesting, strong character?
[I haven't even touched on my thoughts about plot and setting, but they
are parallel. Incidentally, anyone want to discuss the inherent
stereotyping and generalization of language, of words themselves? I
mean, how do you communicate if you don't share concepts?]
Any responses, comments, or thoughts gratefully read.
Apologies for accidentally bringing up a writing topic. Flog me.
(no, not you, TJ.)
tink